Once upon a time, the President's State of the Union message to Congress was a written formality, a routine mandated by the Constitution. Then, for a time, a President would deliver it in person, and maybe -- just maybe -- it would be broadcast on radio.
Also once upon a time, members of Congress gathered in the House or Senate chambers and actually talked to each other, often vigorously, hashing out their differences and occasionally getting something done.
Then came television, and the opportunity to present an image directly to the public and voters. Now, the State of the Union message is a highly choreographed exercise in image management, with the President claiming, Willy Loman-like, that everything is wonderful, even while acknowledging that things could be better, and here's how it can be done. This televised image-burnishing is immediately followed by a rebuttal speech by a member of the opposition party. This year, moreover, the American public ear will be bombarded by no fewer than three -- count 'em, three -- spokesmen for opposing political factions.
What happened? Politicians discovered the power of media, especially video media. This gives them the opportunity to deliver their message directly to voters, without -- to them -- the nuisance factor of reporters and editors filtering the dross and forwarding the important, relevant information to the public.
And have you noticed how often TV news shows speeches in the House or Senate delivered to empty chairs? Political colleagues and opponents aren't even in the building. But no matter. The important thing is that the cameras are running and the image can be given to TV news editors, saving them the effort of assigning a reporter to actually attend Congressional sessions.
Video is a wonder technology, in that it can give the public more information about what government officials are doing. And, as always, politicians want to control the message, while news reporters and editors strive to avoid being controlled.
In a broader analysis, the conflict of efforts can be a good thing, especially as journalists work hard not to be manipulated. Unfortunately, some politicians can be master manipulators, and far too many journalists are lax in their efforts to avoid being manipulated.
So in the final analysis, it falls to the viewing and reading public to decide when, whether and how politicians are attempting to manipulate their image, and journalists are unwittingly complicit in the manipulation.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Vowel Sounds
Referring to vowel sounds is not the same as referring to vowel letters. The English language lists five vowel letters -- A, E, I, O and U. And each can be used to represent more than one sound. (Sometimes, Y is included in the list, but technically it's a glide.) For example, the letter 'a' is used to represent several vowel sounds. The vowel in the words 'cat' and 'can' differ, and even these two words can be pronounced differently, depending on dialect and usage. For instance, in the Chicago dialect, the vowel sound in the word 'cat' is pronounced the same as the vowel sound in the word 'can,' the container. Even the word 'can' can differ. Hear it? The first 'can' rhymes with the name, Anne, and the second rhymes with the name, Ken.
When I was studying phonetics, one class assignment was to list the number of vowel sounds in my own dialect. I forget the exact number, but it was something like 12 or 15, even though there are only five vowel letters in our 26-letter alphabet. As for the total number of phonemes (specific meaningful sounds), my Northern New Jersey dialect lists something like 36.
Some dictionaries, the Oxford English Dictionary for example, maintain that 'a' should be used before 'hotel', because the first letter represents what we were told in grade school was an 'aspirate h.' Which is to say it is a kind of blowing out of air (aspirated). This difference shows up in comparing 'hat' and 'at.' The first word starts with an aspiration.
I don't agree with the OED on the 'a' before 'historic.' In some dialects, mine included, the 'h' is silent when used in the phrase 'an historic occasion.' But when the word 'historic' stands alone, the 'h' is aspirated.
Ain't linguistics and phonetics fun?
In this editor's opinion, linguistically, all dialects are equal. Each one enables its speakers to communicate quite well within its linguistic community. The only reason some dialects have more prestige than others is because its speakers have more prestige. And that is a social judgment, not linguistic.
Among hospital and rehab staff we have encountered, there are nurses and techs whose first languages range from Russian to Polish to Spanish to Haitian French to Hindi and Urdu or some of the other languages of the Indian subcontinent. And they all use English to communicate with each other and the patients. So that makes English a lingua franca in this circumstance.
When I was studying phonetics, one class assignment was to list the number of vowel sounds in my own dialect. I forget the exact number, but it was something like 12 or 15, even though there are only five vowel letters in our 26-letter alphabet. As for the total number of phonemes (specific meaningful sounds), my Northern New Jersey dialect lists something like 36.
Some dictionaries, the Oxford English Dictionary for example, maintain that 'a' should be used before 'hotel', because the first letter represents what we were told in grade school was an 'aspirate h.' Which is to say it is a kind of blowing out of air (aspirated). This difference shows up in comparing 'hat' and 'at.' The first word starts with an aspiration.
I don't agree with the OED on the 'a' before 'historic.' In some dialects, mine included, the 'h' is silent when used in the phrase 'an historic occasion.' But when the word 'historic' stands alone, the 'h' is aspirated.
Ain't linguistics and phonetics fun?
In this editor's opinion, linguistically, all dialects are equal. Each one enables its speakers to communicate quite well within its linguistic community. The only reason some dialects have more prestige than others is because its speakers have more prestige. And that is a social judgment, not linguistic.
Among hospital and rehab staff we have encountered, there are nurses and techs whose first languages range from Russian to Polish to Spanish to Haitian French to Hindi and Urdu or some of the other languages of the Indian subcontinent. And they all use English to communicate with each other and the patients. So that makes English a lingua franca in this circumstance.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Jottings
An NBC-TV reporter in Philadelphia noted that "legal experts say that one of them is lying."
When claims from two people, in this case the mayor of Hoboken and the lieutenant governor of New Jersey, are totally opposite, it doesn't take a genius or a lawyer to conclude that one of them is describing a situation that is factually inaccurate.
As a young reporter once asked a senior editor: "Did you ever get the feeling when working on a story that a speaker for one side is lying?"
"Of course," the editor replied. "It happens all the time. And maybe they both are."
A hospital is touting the "ambient experience" of its new MRI machine. All experience is ambient, with the possible exception of the spiritual or the intellectual. But even these happen in a time and place. By definition, "ambient" refers to your immediate surroundings.
A TV ad praises "an unique" product. The grammatical rule for using the indefinite article a and its partner an stipulates that an is used before a vowel, but this refers to the sound, not the letter. The pronunciation of "unique" begins with the sound known as a glide, represented phonetically by the symbol -y- as found in the beginning of the words "you young youth." This may be an uninteresting topic for some, but it is a unique feature of the language.
A marriage counselor asked a couple, "Do you two dialogue?"
Spouse: "You mean do we talk to each other?"
In some parts of New Jersey, the middle finger gesture is a traffic signal.
When claims from two people, in this case the mayor of Hoboken and the lieutenant governor of New Jersey, are totally opposite, it doesn't take a genius or a lawyer to conclude that one of them is describing a situation that is factually inaccurate.
As a young reporter once asked a senior editor: "Did you ever get the feeling when working on a story that a speaker for one side is lying?"
"Of course," the editor replied. "It happens all the time. And maybe they both are."
A hospital is touting the "ambient experience" of its new MRI machine. All experience is ambient, with the possible exception of the spiritual or the intellectual. But even these happen in a time and place. By definition, "ambient" refers to your immediate surroundings.
A TV ad praises "an unique" product. The grammatical rule for using the indefinite article a and its partner an stipulates that an is used before a vowel, but this refers to the sound, not the letter. The pronunciation of "unique" begins with the sound known as a glide, represented phonetically by the symbol -y- as found in the beginning of the words "you young youth." This may be an uninteresting topic for some, but it is a unique feature of the language.
A marriage counselor asked a couple, "Do you two dialogue?"
Spouse: "You mean do we talk to each other?"
In some parts of New Jersey, the middle finger gesture is a traffic signal.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Arrogance
When you misbehave in public, you lose the shield of privacy.
Lawyer to reporter: "You can't eavesdrop, this is a private conversation."
Reporter: "This is a sidewalk on a public street. If you want privacy, go to a private place."
"That's my personal life," and variations of that song are chanted by celebrities as diverse as Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto, Francoise Hollande, president of France, and pop star Justin Bieber.
Many such personalities protest when their exploits attract camera crews, and object when amateur video documents incidents that are at best foolish and at worst criminal. But like it or not, those who willingly enter public life lose much of their private life, especially those in politics or the entertainment field, and success depends on how much attention you attract.
When Rob Ford pops off at citizens during an open city council meeting, or goes on what appears to be a drunken rant in a restaurant, he cannot claim privacy because incidents like that happened in public places.
When the president of France rides a motor scooter to visit his latest paramour, he cannot claim privacy because he is on a public street.
When Justin Bieber races his rented bright yellow Lamborghini down a residential street at 4 a.m., documented by video cameras, and admits to under-age drinking and smoking marijuana only hours before, as well as not having a valid driver's license, he cannot rationally protest to the arresting officers that they should leave him alone.
Moral: To maintain privacy, do your personal stuff in private, and especially not when cameras are running. To somehow assume an exemption from laws or standards of social behavior on the grounds of wealth, station or popularity, is an extreme arrogance. There will be consequences.
Being stoned may be a reason, but it's not an excuse.
Lawyer to reporter: "You can't eavesdrop, this is a private conversation."
Reporter: "This is a sidewalk on a public street. If you want privacy, go to a private place."
"That's my personal life," and variations of that song are chanted by celebrities as diverse as Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto, Francoise Hollande, president of France, and pop star Justin Bieber.
Many such personalities protest when their exploits attract camera crews, and object when amateur video documents incidents that are at best foolish and at worst criminal. But like it or not, those who willingly enter public life lose much of their private life, especially those in politics or the entertainment field, and success depends on how much attention you attract.
When Rob Ford pops off at citizens during an open city council meeting, or goes on what appears to be a drunken rant in a restaurant, he cannot claim privacy because incidents like that happened in public places.
When the president of France rides a motor scooter to visit his latest paramour, he cannot claim privacy because he is on a public street.
When Justin Bieber races his rented bright yellow Lamborghini down a residential street at 4 a.m., documented by video cameras, and admits to under-age drinking and smoking marijuana only hours before, as well as not having a valid driver's license, he cannot rationally protest to the arresting officers that they should leave him alone.
Moral: To maintain privacy, do your personal stuff in private, and especially not when cameras are running. To somehow assume an exemption from laws or standards of social behavior on the grounds of wealth, station or popularity, is an extreme arrogance. There will be consequences.
Being stoned may be a reason, but it's not an excuse.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Fact Checking vs Prior Approval
"Send it to us for fact checking" is a ploy by subjects to get prior approval of a news story before publication.
Ignoring a reporter does not stop the story from going to press.
Responsible journalists do not submit material in advance of publication for "fact checking" by the subject. Too often, subjects ask for a review under the guise of "fact checking," but what they really want is prior approval and the opportunity to reslant the story to be favorable to them.
Some university officials protested that a CNN reporter didn't check her data about athletes who could not read college textbooks, and accused the reporter of not using good data. Reporter's response: She tried repeatedly to get comments from university officials, but none came.
The story ran anyway, despite the school's attempt to ignore it, in the hope that refusing to comment meant the story would not appear.
Similarly, Roger Ailes, the head of Fox Broadcasting, accused a biographer of not submitting his manuscript in advance for "fact checking." The exec had ignored repeated requests for interviews, so the biographer did his own research and hired his own independent "fact checkers."
The book was indeed published, and included parts that were not flattering to the subject.
Moral: To paraphrase the immortal words of Barry Fitzgerald in the movie The Quiet Man, "They had their chance, and they muffed it."
Ignoring a reporter does not stop the story from going to press.
Responsible journalists do not submit material in advance of publication for "fact checking" by the subject. Too often, subjects ask for a review under the guise of "fact checking," but what they really want is prior approval and the opportunity to reslant the story to be favorable to them.
Some university officials protested that a CNN reporter didn't check her data about athletes who could not read college textbooks, and accused the reporter of not using good data. Reporter's response: She tried repeatedly to get comments from university officials, but none came.
The story ran anyway, despite the school's attempt to ignore it, in the hope that refusing to comment meant the story would not appear.
Similarly, Roger Ailes, the head of Fox Broadcasting, accused a biographer of not submitting his manuscript in advance for "fact checking." The exec had ignored repeated requests for interviews, so the biographer did his own research and hired his own independent "fact checkers."
The book was indeed published, and included parts that were not flattering to the subject.
Moral: To paraphrase the immortal words of Barry Fitzgerald in the movie The Quiet Man, "They had their chance, and they muffed it."
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Wolf Pack Journalism
City vacationer to farmer: "This mule won't move when I tell him to."
Farmer picks up a large stick, raps the mule hard on the head, and says "Giddyup."
At that, the mule starts to move as the farmer reminds the vacationer:
"You wanna tell him something, you gotta get his attention first."
Far too often, public figures in America go on their merry way, doing whatever they choose to do, and there are few consequences.
Until.
Until they do something that's so juicy, so egregious, and/or so easy to write about or comment on that many in the media pile on, just as wolves in a pack focus on the one creature in the herd that shows a weakness.
Reporters may win prizes for what's called "enterprise journalism," but the reality is that many if not most reporters are lazy, and follow the herd until they see a weakness.
Part of that is practicality. Readers accept what they already believe. People act on what they believe, regardless of fact or reality. They accept as true that which they already believe.
Or, as the fictional Chester A. Reilly said in the early radio comedy, "My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts."
So it is with American political figures and others in the public eye. The kind of political back-stabbing evidenced in the New Jersey bridge shutdown just happened to be more egregious than most Garden State political dirty tricks. And it wasn't until a determined reporter for a local newspaper broke the story that other media picked it up, finding other politicians who were willing to be quoted in the attack pack, and the story got legs, so to speak. It now has been dominating the national news for weeks, even though the bridge access lane shutdown happened last September.
Why didn't the news media catch the story earlier? One could say it wasn't ripe. One could say reporters were focusing on bigger stories. After all, there's only room on Page One for seven to nine stories on any one day, and reporters strive for Page One stories. One could cite many possible reasons why the story didn't break until months later. But the story did, eventually, break, and it only took one reporter to start what became a media frenzy.
Woodward and Bernstein of the Washington Post worked on the Watergate story for months before it was finally picked up by Walter Cronkite for the CBS Evening News. It was then that the journalistic wolves saw the weakness and closed in, abetted by opportunistic politicians, and President Richard M. Nixon fell from office.
The Watergate break-in was a relatively minor operation perpetrated by what was called the Department of Dirty Tricks in the re-election campaign. It, too, was unnecessary, since there was little doubt of Nixon's return to office.
Moreover, political dirty tricks are not limited to one party or one level of government. National escapades get more ink and air time, and state level shenanigans rise to that level of exposure only if the central figure -- a governor, for example -- has national aspirations.
Morality, like the parrot's plumage made famous by Monty Python, don't enter into it.
Farmer picks up a large stick, raps the mule hard on the head, and says "Giddyup."
At that, the mule starts to move as the farmer reminds the vacationer:
"You wanna tell him something, you gotta get his attention first."
Far too often, public figures in America go on their merry way, doing whatever they choose to do, and there are few consequences.
Until.
Until they do something that's so juicy, so egregious, and/or so easy to write about or comment on that many in the media pile on, just as wolves in a pack focus on the one creature in the herd that shows a weakness.
Reporters may win prizes for what's called "enterprise journalism," but the reality is that many if not most reporters are lazy, and follow the herd until they see a weakness.
Part of that is practicality. Readers accept what they already believe. People act on what they believe, regardless of fact or reality. They accept as true that which they already believe.
Or, as the fictional Chester A. Reilly said in the early radio comedy, "My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts."
So it is with American political figures and others in the public eye. The kind of political back-stabbing evidenced in the New Jersey bridge shutdown just happened to be more egregious than most Garden State political dirty tricks. And it wasn't until a determined reporter for a local newspaper broke the story that other media picked it up, finding other politicians who were willing to be quoted in the attack pack, and the story got legs, so to speak. It now has been dominating the national news for weeks, even though the bridge access lane shutdown happened last September.
Why didn't the news media catch the story earlier? One could say it wasn't ripe. One could say reporters were focusing on bigger stories. After all, there's only room on Page One for seven to nine stories on any one day, and reporters strive for Page One stories. One could cite many possible reasons why the story didn't break until months later. But the story did, eventually, break, and it only took one reporter to start what became a media frenzy.
Woodward and Bernstein of the Washington Post worked on the Watergate story for months before it was finally picked up by Walter Cronkite for the CBS Evening News. It was then that the journalistic wolves saw the weakness and closed in, abetted by opportunistic politicians, and President Richard M. Nixon fell from office.
The Watergate break-in was a relatively minor operation perpetrated by what was called the Department of Dirty Tricks in the re-election campaign. It, too, was unnecessary, since there was little doubt of Nixon's return to office.
Moreover, political dirty tricks are not limited to one party or one level of government. National escapades get more ink and air time, and state level shenanigans rise to that level of exposure only if the central figure -- a governor, for example -- has national aspirations.
Morality, like the parrot's plumage made famous by Monty Python, don't enter into it.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Famous Last Words
"I am not a bully," -- Chris Christie
"I am not a crook." -- Richard M. Nixon
"The buck stops here." -- Harry S. Truman
In his defense of his administration's behavior in closing access lanes for four days from the New Jersey city of Fort Lee to the George Washington Bridge over the Hudson River, NJ Gov. Chris Christie said, "Mistakes were made."
This is not the same as saying, "We made mistakes." Using the passive form implies that somehow, somewhere, mistakes took on a life of their own and overwhelmed a few otherwise well-meaning individuals. Moreover, these independent, malicious "mistake" entities screwed up the work of these innocent, devoted public servants.
Hah!
As for not being a bully, CNN went into its video archive and broadcast numerous examples of Gov. Christie -- in public -- insulting, berating, abusing and otherwise yelling at people who dared to disagree with him or criticizing news reporters who had the temerity to ask a question he didn't want to deal with.
Granted, there are times when being forceful is appropriate and necessary, such as leaning on government agencies to come through with help in cleaning up storm damage, as Christie did when Hurricane Sandy devastated the Jersey Shore. But publicly berating people while cameras are running will come back to bite.
As for the Christie aides who shut down access to the bridge from Fort Lee to Manhattan, there is clear evidence that this was done as punishment for the mayor, a Democrat, who declined to endorse Christie, a Republican, during the re-election campaign.
And this is doubly sad because it was not necessary, since anyone with the smallest knowledge of New Jersey politics knew that Christie would win re-election in a walk. But it's part of a pattern of bullying tactics that the Christie team has used to punish any who refused to get with the program and be part of the team.
"I am not a crook." -- Richard M. Nixon
"The buck stops here." -- Harry S. Truman
In his defense of his administration's behavior in closing access lanes for four days from the New Jersey city of Fort Lee to the George Washington Bridge over the Hudson River, NJ Gov. Chris Christie said, "Mistakes were made."
This is not the same as saying, "We made mistakes." Using the passive form implies that somehow, somewhere, mistakes took on a life of their own and overwhelmed a few otherwise well-meaning individuals. Moreover, these independent, malicious "mistake" entities screwed up the work of these innocent, devoted public servants.
Hah!
As for not being a bully, CNN went into its video archive and broadcast numerous examples of Gov. Christie -- in public -- insulting, berating, abusing and otherwise yelling at people who dared to disagree with him or criticizing news reporters who had the temerity to ask a question he didn't want to deal with.
Granted, there are times when being forceful is appropriate and necessary, such as leaning on government agencies to come through with help in cleaning up storm damage, as Christie did when Hurricane Sandy devastated the Jersey Shore. But publicly berating people while cameras are running will come back to bite.
As for the Christie aides who shut down access to the bridge from Fort Lee to Manhattan, there is clear evidence that this was done as punishment for the mayor, a Democrat, who declined to endorse Christie, a Republican, during the re-election campaign.
And this is doubly sad because it was not necessary, since anyone with the smallest knowledge of New Jersey politics knew that Christie would win re-election in a walk. But it's part of a pattern of bullying tactics that the Christie team has used to punish any who refused to get with the program and be part of the team.
Verbosity
A reporter's job is to tell a story, not to win a court case.
When in doubt, rephrase.
Writing manuals all tout the advantage of active verbs over the passive, and stress the advantages of brevity. Here's an example that took verbosity to an extreme:
Township officials "have authorized entering into agreement of sale for the purchase" of approximately 62.8 acres. That's ten words to say what three would have done better: "plan to buy." And if you insist on getting into lawyerly CYA phrasing, just in case the agreement doesn't happen, you can put that into another sentence or paragraph.
On the issue of lawyer-talk, surveyors may cover their legal butts by saying "approximately" but for the rest of us, 62.8 is a fairly exact number. For news writers, it's enough to say "nearly 63 acres" or "more than 62 acres."
In all, the errant phrase was part of a 32-word suitcase sentence that packed everything into a single opening. A better way to communicate would be to use two short sentences.
News writers are not always bound by legalistic precision. Sometimes, approximations make for faster and better communication.
When in doubt, rephrase.
Writing manuals all tout the advantage of active verbs over the passive, and stress the advantages of brevity. Here's an example that took verbosity to an extreme:
Township officials "have authorized entering into agreement of sale for the purchase" of approximately 62.8 acres. That's ten words to say what three would have done better: "plan to buy." And if you insist on getting into lawyerly CYA phrasing, just in case the agreement doesn't happen, you can put that into another sentence or paragraph.
On the issue of lawyer-talk, surveyors may cover their legal butts by saying "approximately" but for the rest of us, 62.8 is a fairly exact number. For news writers, it's enough to say "nearly 63 acres" or "more than 62 acres."
In all, the errant phrase was part of a 32-word suitcase sentence that packed everything into a single opening. A better way to communicate would be to use two short sentences.
News writers are not always bound by legalistic precision. Sometimes, approximations make for faster and better communication.
Friday, January 3, 2014
Jobs Mismatch
"I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door." -- Emma Lazarus poem, inscribed on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, welcoming newcomers to the land of opportunity.
"Go West, young man, and grow up with the country." -- Horace Greeley, urging Easterners to seek opportunity on the American frontier.
One of the biggest problems facing America is a lack of jobs. In Europe, there are thousands of high-tech jobs unfilled because of a lack of skills. In Washington, the White House is increasing its campaign to urge Congress to extend unemployment benefits, warning that nearly 5 million workers will lose that help, together with another 9 million family members they support. Moreover, if Congress fails to act, "it could cost our economy 240,000 jobs this year," the White House posted on its Twitter feed.
Among the angry responses: "Maybe when some of them lose unemployment insurance they will quit sitting at home and GET A JOB!"
Another: "Come to Texas. Plenty of high paying jobs here."
As indicated above, however, there are also plenty of high paying technology jobs going unfilled in Europe. All this illustrates a basic problem in labor economics: The mismatch of workers and jobs, and this can happen for several reasons.
1/ Too many workers and not enough jobs, as in a recession.
2/ Too many jobs and not enough workers, as in boom times.
3/ A geographical mismatch, when available jobs are far away, and workers may not be willing to relocate.
4/ A skills mismatch, when people seek work, but don't have the skills needed. Or conversely, jobs are available but workers are overqualified for low-skill jobs and employers are reluctant to hire such workers.
A major reason people came to America has long been the availability of jobs, skilled or unskilled. Today, however, college graduates take jobs in fast-food restaurant outlets because there is little demand for their skills. Engineers are needed in new oil field operations in the Far West, and offer high pay as an incentive to persuade workers to relocate.
But if high-tech computer programmers are in demand in Europe, perhaps the migration flow will reverse itself, and young workers will go eastward, and grow up with new industries.
Even so, that won't satisfy those who worry about an "immigration problem," since many newcomers take the low-skill, low-pay jobs that well educated Americans don't want and won't take. And if highly skilled Americans go where the jobs are, in other countries, that will only worsen an already fragile economy as the population becomes largely one of low skilled, poorly educated workers struggling for low pay jobs.
It has already happened to major cities in America's industrial heartland as skilled workers moved to the suburbs and companies followed them. And as manufacturing and technology industries grow in other countries, perhaps skilled American workers will go where the jobs are.
For many decades, people came to America because this is where the jobs have been. If the jobs are no longer here, people will go elsewhere.
"Go West, young man, and grow up with the country." -- Horace Greeley, urging Easterners to seek opportunity on the American frontier.
One of the biggest problems facing America is a lack of jobs. In Europe, there are thousands of high-tech jobs unfilled because of a lack of skills. In Washington, the White House is increasing its campaign to urge Congress to extend unemployment benefits, warning that nearly 5 million workers will lose that help, together with another 9 million family members they support. Moreover, if Congress fails to act, "it could cost our economy 240,000 jobs this year," the White House posted on its Twitter feed.
Among the angry responses: "Maybe when some of them lose unemployment insurance they will quit sitting at home and GET A JOB!"
Another: "Come to Texas. Plenty of high paying jobs here."
As indicated above, however, there are also plenty of high paying technology jobs going unfilled in Europe. All this illustrates a basic problem in labor economics: The mismatch of workers and jobs, and this can happen for several reasons.
1/ Too many workers and not enough jobs, as in a recession.
2/ Too many jobs and not enough workers, as in boom times.
3/ A geographical mismatch, when available jobs are far away, and workers may not be willing to relocate.
4/ A skills mismatch, when people seek work, but don't have the skills needed. Or conversely, jobs are available but workers are overqualified for low-skill jobs and employers are reluctant to hire such workers.
A major reason people came to America has long been the availability of jobs, skilled or unskilled. Today, however, college graduates take jobs in fast-food restaurant outlets because there is little demand for their skills. Engineers are needed in new oil field operations in the Far West, and offer high pay as an incentive to persuade workers to relocate.
But if high-tech computer programmers are in demand in Europe, perhaps the migration flow will reverse itself, and young workers will go eastward, and grow up with new industries.
Even so, that won't satisfy those who worry about an "immigration problem," since many newcomers take the low-skill, low-pay jobs that well educated Americans don't want and won't take. And if highly skilled Americans go where the jobs are, in other countries, that will only worsen an already fragile economy as the population becomes largely one of low skilled, poorly educated workers struggling for low pay jobs.
It has already happened to major cities in America's industrial heartland as skilled workers moved to the suburbs and companies followed them. And as manufacturing and technology industries grow in other countries, perhaps skilled American workers will go where the jobs are.
For many decades, people came to America because this is where the jobs have been. If the jobs are no longer here, people will go elsewhere.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
5 W's of Economic Policy
"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." -- Mark Twain
"Failure is not an option." -- Gene Kranz , Mission Control flight director for Apollo 13
The difference between weather talk and economic talk is that something can be done about the economy. The real issue is not whether something can be done, but how, when and by whom.
In journalism, the 5 W's are Who, What, Where, When, and Why, plus How. This same formula can be applied to economics, and how to help an economy recover from a downturn.
To start with, the What and the Where are clear: The What is the economy and the Where is the nation. The others then become Who should intervene, When, Why (or Whether) and How.
Adherents to conservative, free-market economic theory insist that the main point is Whether, or Why, and their answer is No. This theory maintains that, left alone, an economy will recover on its own, so there is no reason why government should interfere with free-market forces. This makes the entire discussion moot. No one should intervene, since the economy eventually will recover and bring itself back to health.
But the question of When remains. How long can a nation and its people wait for free-market forces to act?
Reality check: We can't wait. Something must be done, and soon. And that answers the question of When. So that takes care of three of the 5 W's -- What, Where and When. That is, the economy, in the nation, now.
Let's deal with Why and Whether, because they are closely related, and both get a similar answer. Some intervention is essential, especially for an economy in severely ill health. Doing nothing is not an option. Failure to act only leads to a further, faster downward spiral, and more people suffer needlessly. We are left, then, with only the Who and the How.
Clearly, consumers and the business sector are victims in an economic downturn, so that leaves government as an entity that can influence economic conditions.
However, this introduces another W: Which branch of government, and How it will induce economic recovery.
There are two ways government can do this: through fiscal policy and through monetary policy. In the U.S., each is controlled by a separate entity in government. Fiscal policy is set by Congress and the Executive branches of government, and equates with how money is spent. Monetary policy influences how much money is available to be spent, and that is set by the Federal Reserve, an independent entity in government. Control of the money supply, which is one of the Fed's main activities, affects inflation and interest rates.
When money is plentiful, government can borrow at low interest rates, and invest that money in projects that put people to work, so they have wages to spend on food, clothing, shelter and other stuff, and as they increase their spending, production rises and the economy recovers.
Similarly, businesses also can borrow at low rates to invest in expansion or increased capacity so they will have a supply of goods to meet demand from consumers who have returned to work and increased their spending.
The kicker, however, is inflation. When the money supply is too high, prices rise and people cannot afford to buy. When it's too low, interest rates rise, and home buyers and firms cannot afford to borrow for purchases.
Some inflation may be helpful, since it persuades people to act soon before prices and interest rates rise further.
All in all, however, monetary policy -- controlling the money supply and thus controlling inflation and interest rates -- is a very tricky business. It can't be too much or too little; it must be just right.
Either way, failure to act is not an option.
"Failure is not an option." -- Gene Kranz , Mission Control flight director for Apollo 13
The difference between weather talk and economic talk is that something can be done about the economy. The real issue is not whether something can be done, but how, when and by whom.
In journalism, the 5 W's are Who, What, Where, When, and Why, plus How. This same formula can be applied to economics, and how to help an economy recover from a downturn.
To start with, the What and the Where are clear: The What is the economy and the Where is the nation. The others then become Who should intervene, When, Why (or Whether) and How.
Adherents to conservative, free-market economic theory insist that the main point is Whether, or Why, and their answer is No. This theory maintains that, left alone, an economy will recover on its own, so there is no reason why government should interfere with free-market forces. This makes the entire discussion moot. No one should intervene, since the economy eventually will recover and bring itself back to health.
But the question of When remains. How long can a nation and its people wait for free-market forces to act?
Reality check: We can't wait. Something must be done, and soon. And that answers the question of When. So that takes care of three of the 5 W's -- What, Where and When. That is, the economy, in the nation, now.
Let's deal with Why and Whether, because they are closely related, and both get a similar answer. Some intervention is essential, especially for an economy in severely ill health. Doing nothing is not an option. Failure to act only leads to a further, faster downward spiral, and more people suffer needlessly. We are left, then, with only the Who and the How.
Clearly, consumers and the business sector are victims in an economic downturn, so that leaves government as an entity that can influence economic conditions.
However, this introduces another W: Which branch of government, and How it will induce economic recovery.
There are two ways government can do this: through fiscal policy and through monetary policy. In the U.S., each is controlled by a separate entity in government. Fiscal policy is set by Congress and the Executive branches of government, and equates with how money is spent. Monetary policy influences how much money is available to be spent, and that is set by the Federal Reserve, an independent entity in government. Control of the money supply, which is one of the Fed's main activities, affects inflation and interest rates.
When money is plentiful, government can borrow at low interest rates, and invest that money in projects that put people to work, so they have wages to spend on food, clothing, shelter and other stuff, and as they increase their spending, production rises and the economy recovers.
Similarly, businesses also can borrow at low rates to invest in expansion or increased capacity so they will have a supply of goods to meet demand from consumers who have returned to work and increased their spending.
The kicker, however, is inflation. When the money supply is too high, prices rise and people cannot afford to buy. When it's too low, interest rates rise, and home buyers and firms cannot afford to borrow for purchases.
Some inflation may be helpful, since it persuades people to act soon before prices and interest rates rise further.
All in all, however, monetary policy -- controlling the money supply and thus controlling inflation and interest rates -- is a very tricky business. It can't be too much or too little; it must be just right.
Either way, failure to act is not an option.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Population Growth
The U.S. population is stabilizing even as the rest of the world is adding people faster, according to U.S. Census estimates.
The nation's population grew by less than 1 percent last year -- about 0.7 percent, the bureau said -- while the rest of the world grew faster -- about 1.1 percent.
And here's a thought to ponder: In January, babies will be born at a faster rate than older folks pass on. One birth is expected every 8 seconds, the bureau said, and one death every 12 seconds. That compares with a worldwide rate of 4.3 births every second and 1.8 deaths, according to Census estimates.
So as America starts the New Year, its population will total 317.3 million, an increase of 2.2 million from a year ago -- or 0.7 percent. And the projected world population is 7.14 billion, an increase of 77.6 million, or 1.1 percent. India leads in the growth spurt, adding 15.6 million people over the year, followed by China, Nigeria, Pakistan and Ethiopia.
In U.S. regions, the South has double the number of people than the Northeast, reflecting a pattern of faster growth. There are nearly 120 million people living in Southern states, the Census Bureau said, compared to 74 million in the West, 68 million in the Midwest and 56 million in the Northeast.
Political watchers take note.
The most populous states, the Census said, are California (38.3 million), Texas (26.5 million), New York (19.7 million), and Florida (19.6 million). Wyoming ranked last in population, with just 582,658 people.
The nation's population grew by less than 1 percent last year -- about 0.7 percent, the bureau said -- while the rest of the world grew faster -- about 1.1 percent.
And here's a thought to ponder: In January, babies will be born at a faster rate than older folks pass on. One birth is expected every 8 seconds, the bureau said, and one death every 12 seconds. That compares with a worldwide rate of 4.3 births every second and 1.8 deaths, according to Census estimates.
So as America starts the New Year, its population will total 317.3 million, an increase of 2.2 million from a year ago -- or 0.7 percent. And the projected world population is 7.14 billion, an increase of 77.6 million, or 1.1 percent. India leads in the growth spurt, adding 15.6 million people over the year, followed by China, Nigeria, Pakistan and Ethiopia.
In U.S. regions, the South has double the number of people than the Northeast, reflecting a pattern of faster growth. There are nearly 120 million people living in Southern states, the Census Bureau said, compared to 74 million in the West, 68 million in the Midwest and 56 million in the Northeast.
Political watchers take note.
The most populous states, the Census said, are California (38.3 million), Texas (26.5 million), New York (19.7 million), and Florida (19.6 million). Wyoming ranked last in population, with just 582,658 people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)